Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="aramis erak" data-source="post: 6643701" data-attributes="member: 6779310">Yep... but note the opposite: if you have a low attack mod in the weapons and the weapons are small, the power attack feat is worth while.It also depends slightly on the nature of the campaign. Power Attacks with daggers are great for a rogue-assassin in a town game, where only a dagger doesn't raise suspicions. 2x((2d6 or 3d6) + 1d4) +(3 to 5) is good, but adding  10 to the minimum means dropping many templates WAY faster.No, there are not. Or, more correctly, you're apparently not competent to assess whether there are or not, because you obviously do not understand it. You misunderstand the tables COMPLETELY - Nowhere do I mention levels.Those are ranges of what natural rolls are needed, NOT  CHARACTER/CLASS LEVEL.As for why less than +2? <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Because not everyone who looks at the feat is a dedicated fighter. (The party druid was considering it.)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Because I included the typical ranges for Adventuer's league play.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Because it's not that much extra to change the entry, copy the result, and add a couple lines to the collation table.</li> </ul>Likewise, the +6 line is for barbarians. I should have added a +7 line, too, but since the comparison for raising I'm ignoring the rest of your post because, plain and simple, you evidently had No Idea what you were looking at and thus are off on a wild tanget that has nothing to do with anything I posted. To see if I can explain it better...If your attribute modifier (and ONLY the attribute modifier NOT THE PROFICIENCY BONUS) is X, and your damage dice are Y, and  the difference of their AC and your attack bonus is in the indicated range, then (for table 1<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />standard attack is better, or (for table two), you'd have been better off with the attribute bonus instead of the feat. (Barring the other benefits being useful enough to justify it.)The First table is for people who bought the feat: it tells when you're better off with the standard attack (But most things that mid-level characters can hit on a natural 10 will die from a 6 or 7 point minimum hit or two anyway...)The second table is for looking at which is better - raising the attribute by 2 or taking the feat granting a power attack. And the difference is PROFOUND. Against most targets of similar CR to Party level, the bonus to attribute is better than a power attack.So, for the guy with Greatsword specialization and a 16 STR at level 4, he's better off taking the +2 Str unless he's facing hordes of normal folk and/or normal animals... At level 1-3, he's +5 to hit, so the typical AC13-16 NPCs need natural rolls of 8-11, but things are (at least in published modules) getting higher AC's. So, unless he's facing knights, the power attack is superior against normal folk... but if he's facing Gargoyles, Giants, Dragons, Spectators, Knights, Stone/Iron Golems, Gorgons, Goblin Bosses, beholders, etc... until level 12, take the Str bonus, because most of your foes fall AC's into the range.At level 12, Barbarians can consider higher attributes, but their bonus is high enough to push even the tougher crowd into marginally better with power attack. (+5 Att, +4 PB) ... even the 19 AC opponent is now below the range where +1 Attribute is better than Power Attack, but it's by a small amount.</blockquote>

Verification